Glenn Greenwald, Robert Scheer shill for arch-reactionary Ron Paul

The disgraceful and frighteningly uniform rallying for Ron Paul among bigshot talking heads on the so-called "left" has made further impressive strides towards cynicism, dishonesty and self-defeating idiocy in recent days. Glenn Greenwald uses his Salon column Dec. 31 to gush over Paul—while denying he "supports" or "endorses" him so many times that it smells strongly of methinks-he-doth-protest-too-much. Effuses Greenwald: "Ron Paul is the only major candidate from either party advocating crucial views on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits." He goes on to dismiss principled progressive criticisms of Paul as "fallacies":

The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute "Ron Paul" is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here—the game that's being played—is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

Greenwald gripes (rather obviously): "The candidate supported by progressives—President Obama—himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested." He then goes on to list a litany of Obama's crimes (the drone wars, targeted assassinations, betrayals of habeas corpus, etc.), which "have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul."

What a spineless and weasily argument! Pointing out the double standard among Obama supporters is just changing the subject—it lets Paul off the hook for nothing. Yes, there damn well are some things that are beyond the pale! Greenwald has it exactly backwards. By legitimizing his wacko far-right ideas among the "lefty" crowd, Paul's candidacy is generating important detriments—which far outweigh any benefits.

Similar swill is served up by Robert Scheer in The Nation, who blames the media for "marginalizing Ron Paul"—as if he doesn't deserve to be marginalized! If in fact Paul were being marginalized, we could thank the media for getting it right! But the "left" media—which should be the loudest voice warning against the lure of Paul's fascistic bogus populism—has been virtually co-opted into a mouthpiece of his campaign!

The Daily Caller links to a video of a 1998 John Birch Society "documentary" on the UN plot to take over America prominently featuring Ron Paul—in which this paradoxical hero of the "left" fuels the xenophobic hallucinations of the Militia Movement. He touts legislation he introducted to withdraw the US from the UN, warns that "they [occupying UN troops?] would confiscate our guns" and "repeal the Second Amendment." He says the UN seeks a program of "socialist redistribution" in the US (if only!) and threatens "private property rights." He warned that soon "we will not a have a United States of America and we will be a pawn of the United Nations." CBS News offers a video in which Paul dismisses the theory of evolution as "a theory, and I don't accept it... The Creator I believe in created the universe..." Pretty sad that the right-wing Daily Caller and mainstream CBS News are doing what Salon and The Nation should be doing!

Ron Paul the Zionist
A particularly hideous irony is provided by the inability of Greenwald and Scheer to perceive what a conniving chameleon Paul is ("pro-life" reactionary in Iowa, anti-Israel peacenik for Nation readers). Greenwald hails Paul's get-tough-on-Israel stance, while contrasting that Obama remains "as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government" (fashionably reversing the power relations between the imperial center and the client state). Contrast this Ron Paul quote from the Israeli daily Ha'aretz Dec. 28, in which Greenwald's hero endorses the Zionist Entity's unilateral land-grabs and military aggression:

I am the one candidate who would respect Israel's sovereignty and not try to dictate to her about how she should deal with her neighbors. I supported Israel's right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama's attempt to dictate Israel's borders this year... Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.

The Newsletters: inexhaustible font of hate
Paul's boosters act as if the racist ugliness that appeared in his newsletter and under his by-line for years is practically old hat. But more and more gems continue to emerge from this seemingly endless store. Good compilations are provided by the MrDestructo and ITalkYouBored blogs: Paul notes that "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be"; he ruminates that the 9-11 attack was "a setup by the Israeli Mossad"; he advises that ACT-UP change its slogan from Silence = Death to "Sodomy = Death." But the best one is Paul's comment about David Duke's 1990 Senate run. Hailing the "former" Klansman's opposition to affirmative action and welfare, Paul said: "To many voters, this seemed just like plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that." Ah yes, neo-fascism is just a little "baggage" that can be "overlooked." Exactly what Greenwald and Scheer now say of Paul!

ThinkProgress provides us with the text of Paul's lame and lukewarm "disavowal" of the years of racist slime he ran under his own by-line:

I never read that stuff. I never—I would never—I came—I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written… Well, you know, we talked about [the newsletters] twice yesterday at CNN. Why don't you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN, and what I've said for 20-some years. It was 22 years ago. I didn't write them. I disavow them and that's it.

Not only is this so dismissive and perfunctory that it barely qualifies as a "disavowal" at all, but ThinkProgress documents that throughout the '90s Paul repeatedly defended the content of toxic newsletters. (LRC blog repeats the widespread claim that Lew Rockwell was Paul's ghost-writer in the newsletters—as if that makes any difference. If you don't vet what your ghost-writers write, you shouldn't sign off on it.)

Ron Paul's hostile take-over of the "left"
When will the "left" recognize that Paul's populist and anti-war rhetoric make him more dangerous, not less? Maybe only after it's too late. The wacky/sinister Alex Jones' Infowars website reports: "After being interrupted by Occupy protesters during a veterans rally in Des Moines, Iowa yesterday, Ron Paul praised the movement, compared it to the Tea Party and declared that he was the only GOP candidate who could bridge the two causes and instill real change in Washington." Great, just what we need—cooptation of an anti-capitalist movement by an exponent of laissez-faire capitalism. Alarmingly, Greenwald even favorably cites a bit of verbal Paul-puffery from Nation publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel!

If we ever see a President Paul, he'll be bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, alright—to wage a race war in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Houston. His own positions make clear that he stands for a Fortress America in which corporations run wild, advances for immigrants and women are radically reversed, and the proverbial 99% are even more thoroughly betrayed. His paradoxical "leftist" boosters seem to mistake isolationism for anti-imperialism—despite the fact that the prior is predicated on xenophbobic nationalism, the latter on solidarity and internationalism. The rally 'round Ron is a betrayal of our most fundamental principles.

There is a case to be made for a tactical vote for Obama to fend off the truly fascistic scenarios represented by a President Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann or Paul—even while vigorously opposing him on the Web and in the streets. There is also a good case that giving the Democrats a blank check will not halt the fascistic trajectory, and is counter-productive. If you feel swayed by the latter case—please, work for the Socialist Party candidate Stewart Alexander. Or join the anarcho-abstentionists and work to expose the entire political process as the sordid farce that it is.

Since Paul's hypocritical supporters are overwhelmingly unwilling to put their free-market principles where their big fat stupid mouths are by paying a lousy buck per comment, we are suspending this policy in the interests of drawing traffic to our website. Every time you click on our page to spew moronic venom, we make money. Please be advised that you will be mercilessly chastised for your foolishness. However, our Posting Policy still applies, so please read it first.

Also note that, like a true weasily politician, he says he disavows their views—but won't disavow their support. (NYT, Dec. 25) Pathetic that anyone who fancies himself a "progressive" or "leftist" would fall for this cynical crap.

So banks are okay but "International Bankers" (are Jews *wink*) and not okay? Not as wacky as controlled demolition and chem trails, and therefore more sinister, but I still wish we could work in UFOs.

We also have a finalist for "worst web page design" in the above link.

I'm voting for Ron Paul because I'm voting against endless wars, cluster bombs, the legalization of torture, & the shredding of the Bill of Rights. I think Republicans are way more disgusting, but Ron Paul is the lesser of 2 evils. Yeah, & I'm a hard core lefty.

If you'd vote Obama over Paul, you have to ask yourself if you agree with this statement:

"Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for "espionage," and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court."

If you'd vote for Paul over Obama, you have to ask yourself if you agree with this statement:

"Yes, I am willing to see the wholesale loss of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, affirmative action, civil rights legislation, the federal minimum wage, OSHA, the EPA, the National Parks, the National Forests, abortion rights, birthright citizenship and public education in exchange for a president who will rein in military adventures abroad and protect (some) civil liberties (as long as you aren't a woman, an immigrant or gay)."

BTW, you don't know how to use quotation marks correctly. Go back to grade school, clown.

It's really funny to me because I can imagine you fervently awaiting comments from pro Ron Paul people so you can pound on your keyboard about how you hate them and Ron Paul.

Half of the things you said he would get rid or would "loose wholesale value" isn't true to his platform. And not only is it extremely slanderous, but it is an outright lie that he would get rid of civil rights legislation public education and abortion rights. Abortion and public education are powers that he delegates to the states, I don't expect you to know any of this because I know you haven't really researched any of his positions. All of you so called progressive/libs seem to all be sounding the same these days so easy to jump on another progressive just because he doesn't conform to your rhetoric. And "some" civil liberties?... How about the core of our civil liberties, what slander to try and sugar coat what the POTUS has been doing since he took office.

The irony of how much hatred you use to paint how hateful a person is, is truly sad. I voted for Obama. I am a progressive. I gave my vote to the wrong person. I don't vote based on parties like you and so many others. These aren't sports teams, these are people who affect our lives.

The only thing I learned in your article is how much you hate Ron Paul. It seems as though
your piece was more of a f*** Ron Paul and this is why. I am not sure what your goal was, but if it was persuasion you did a very poor job, manly by invoking so much hatred for a person you claim is fill with.

All my claims are hyperlinked and documented. Any reader can check for his or herself.

Overturning Roe V. Wade means "delegating" the power to outlaw abortion to the states. This is what the choice movement has been fighting for a generation. Some friend of freedom you are. Go get your own blog, willya?

Therefore, if you are supporting Ron Paul, you are bragging about the fact that endorsing racism to the point of repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 simply doesn't bother you very much -- in which case the "core" of your alleged leftism is far LESS "hard" than you think it is.

Bill, you've convinced me that this leftwing support for Ron Paul is serious.
There's really no more question but that Paul is simply a member of the Old Right who's managed a comeback for the most nasty of American political traditions.
There seems to be MORE disgust for Paul among the moderate Right and mainstream Republicans than among the Left.
I think that needs explaining.

I think it's time to stop cataloging Paul's appalling positions and supporters and start interviewing a few of the leftist pundits who support Paul.

"Hysteria" is the fave word of Paul-suckers to dismiss criticisms of their hero. Nothing dishonest (or "hysterical") about my post, but much dishonest about your comment. We did deal with his "arguments," and also acknowledged his bogus disavowals of Paul.

And that point is that people who are supporting Obama while repudiating Paul are being inconsistent because they are not holding the two of them to the same standard. They are claiming that Paul should be repudiated for the half of his positions that are racist, even if the half that are isolationist are attractive. Greenwald, in full-on hobgoblin drag, is claiming that consistency demands that the same leftists must repudiate Obama for killing civilians in Afghanistan and signing the new defense authorization act, regardless of his being better on other issues.

This is JUST BULLSHIT.

Obama is IN OFFICE and has to sign things that had to pass A REPUBLICAN HOUSE and a REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER in the Senate.
Obama could have closed Gitmo and tried people in New York and
ended drone operations in Afghanistan, and gotten NOTHING instead
of something out of the Congress he has, as well as national calls for his impeachment (or even his overt and actual impeachment for failing to defend the country against terorism) from this Republican House.

The fact that Obama IS ACTUALLY GOVERNING with law-making levers controlled BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY means that he and his administration CONTINUALLY get to take publicly-endorsed COMPROMISE positions that they DO NOT agree with or support, DESPITE their signing on to them. They DO NOT have the luxury of publicly endorsing what AND ONLY WHAT they ACTUALLY BELIEVE. RON PAUL DOES.
NOBODY PUT A GUN TO HIS HEAD telling him to repudiate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. HE REALLY *WANTS* TO DO THAT. Obama, by contrast, when he tried to try terrorism suspects in New York, was faced with the Senate voting 94-6 the other way. When he tried to end the Bush tax cuts, he was faced with the end of unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed and the end of low-end cuts as well.

There REALLY IS A DIFFERENCE between collateral damage, compromise to break gridlock, and FLAUNTING YOUR HATE AND ID, the latter of which is what Paul is doing. And, Yes, GLENN GREENWALD REALLY THINKS *YOU'RE*STUPID*ENOUGH* to fall for it!

I disagree that Democrats have to play along with Republicans in order to get things done. We had control of the whole government and lost it because Obama didn't take strong stands. Bush and the Republicans had no trouble taking strong stands, which is why they always get their way.

The twisted contortions that the "left" use to justify supporting Paul smell of denial and wishful thinking. Many out there seem bitter that Obama's amorphous slogans of the campaign didn't translate immediately into the progressive warrior they assumed he was all along (hey, he's black, he's got to be a left of center liberal). Ignore for the moment the political minutiae of what Obama actually stands for (besides reelection), what was actually possible over the last couple of years given institutional momentum - this country has been on war footing since the fifties - and the cold political calculus that the right wing of American political demographics well outnumbers the far left and that the aforementioned permanent reelection campaign would always be facing a united energized populist right wing (a black guy?!). Obama woulda coulda shoulda is a different thread.

Why the left in this case thoroughly earns the "idiot" in "idiot left" without the usual surrealism is the epic wishful thinking involved in Paul's libertarian poses. Is anyone really under the illusion that a President Paul, given his history, wouldn't feel the need to compromise his domestic rights and anti police state positions given the scary SCARY black people (they do run so fast) and women's rights activists, or the hopefully inevitable level of civil (and uncivil) disobedience that his dismantling of the environmental regulations would inspire? You Paul supporters do understand that Dioxin from Ohio reaches NYC on the wind? So if some big corporation, freed from the evil socialist chains that are holding them back, starts covering my kids with, for instance, Cesium 137 I wait for the hidden hand of the market to sort it out?

And ... can some Paul supporter explain exactly what the problem with the Federal Reserve is? I personally have a problem with industrial capitalism and international banking but, given the existence of the financial markets, what makes the Fed any worse? Seems like the Fed is the bankers trying to keep their system stable. Why should I care except for some amorphous theory of freedom?

Libertarians seem to always define freedom as freedom for big business (organized crime) or religion, or local racial majorities to oppress the weaker and less well armed. The comic book fantasy of us all sorting it out with guns is amusing and hopefully not ominous from the right and pathetic from the left.

Yeah Obama signed indefinite detention. If you're under the illusion that a President Paul wouldn't have I have a bridge to sell you after he sells you a campaign.

Sorry I am of the "Illusion" that he WOULD NEVER SIGN THAT....He has consistently opposed the "Patriot" Act. I look forward to buying that bridge....I'm sure I'll get a GREAT deal as you must be smoking turds.....(Which Ron Paul will allow states to legalize!!!!) Obama is OWNED by Goldman Sachs and Big Business....I want Bill Black to PROSECUTE them and JAIL them and GET SOME $$$ back.....

Can you sum up what's wrong with the Fed (that's not also wrong with big banking in general) in 50 words? Do you understand why the bankers put in the Fed to begin with?

And if you believe that Ron Paul and his white supremacist pals would not be seduced by police state power once it was close to their finger tips then you're an all day sucker. It's easy to say stuff and constantly oppose things - See: B Obama, candidacy - when you're a Congressman who's never actually gotten anything done besides rhetorical posing.

But then have to actually run (or even dismantle) the government? Grow up libertarians. The world is much too crowded for your comic books.

The Federal reserve is a private bank and whose members are unelected and yet the actions they take affect every American. For example they can and have diluted the money leading to price inflation. Is that enough how about the 1.2 trillion in secret loans Wall Street got. Not enough how about 5.5 billion dollar loan to Iraq.

Do you know anything about the crisis that inspired the Fed? All big banks / corporations take actions that affect every American. "diluted the money leading to price inflation" except there hasn't been much inflation recently. Kind of rough when actual reality bumps into half baked abstract economics. Does "freedom" - excuse me "FREEDOM" - mean the freedom to have the largest financial entities manipulate the money supply for short term speculative gain? I understand if you have a problem with corporate capitalism (I do) but if we let the bankers run the show - and surely you libertarians wouldn't impose the public will on any bankers - then what's wrong with them having a private club to juggle their monopoly money? There is no evidence that the post-Federal Reserve world was worse for the little guy than the pre Federal Reserve world. Do some reading on the subject instead of an occasional youtube video.

And 5.5 billion to Iraq? Something like 20 billion in cash went missing at the beginning of the Bush war.

"All big banks / corporations take actions that affect every American" Yes but none of them print money and are able to bail out their friends on Wall Street. My point wasn't that because its actions affect Americans that it is bad but is that they are not accountable to the American people. [ad hominem attack].Example is the $29 trillion it used to loan out to their cronies on Wall Street which the majority of Americans want. "except there hasn't been much inflation recently". What do you mean recently. Like a nano second a go.[ad hominem attack] In the past 50 years the price of house’s, and cars have gone up 1000% percent, while wages have only increased by 200 to 300%. But how much has it it been inflated "recently", right? "Kind of rough when actual reality bumps into half baked abstract economics." Kind of rough when it turns out reality bumps into arrogant comments. [ad hominem attack] "Does "freedom" - excuse me "FREEDOM" - mean the freedom to have the largest financial entities manipulate the money supply for short term speculative gain?" They wouldn't be able to if we had sound money."There is no evidence that the post-Federal Reserve world was worse for the little guy than the pre Federal Reserve world." There is plenty of evidence, just look at the increase in wealth gap, the inflation of prices and so on. "Do some reading on the subject instead of an occasional youtube video." I like how every other sentence is an ad hominem attack on me. Do some actual arguing next time other than just attacking me and libertarians which I never said I was but whatever. [ad hominem attack]

Do you actually understand the historical context in which the Fed was created? Any awareness of the boom and bust period before the Fed? Are you claiming that economic inequality was made worse by the Federal Reserve system? If so, why? Are you claiming that there was no inflation before the Fed? Show the data.

Do you just paste "[ad hominem attack]" in randomly. Here's an [ad hominem attack]: You don't know what you're talking about. You have a bunch of received ideas that you've decided are true because they sound good to you and have done no research that might contradict this cartoon economic reality.

There are major structural problems with capitalism and if you're under the illusion that the big banks are "accountable to the American people" then you should stop smoking. Banks, by definition, print money by charging interest. This creates problems which have been understood throughout history (google: jubilee).

I've yet to see any evidence that the Federal Reserve makes it worse for us little people and plenty of evidence (see: 19th century) that it makes it marginally better. Whether Ron Paul is a sinister "states rights" con game to roll back civil rights and environmental protections or a messianic economic illiterate or some combination I don't know. He hasn't done anything concrete in his public life besides rhetoric as far as I can tell. Am I wrong? Show me the bill.

Don't bother responding unless you reference data before the Federal Reserve because if you aren't aware of the problems that the Fed was created to avoid then you're just babbling. But you won't because you wouldn't want your Paul fantasy threatened [ad hominem attack?].

As basically an anarchist, I will support Ron Paul for the following reasons:
1) Either he will bring home the troups OR we, the people will be enlightened that the Prez is a figurehead only and the country is primarily run by the Industrial Military Complex and their bigcorps.
Either outcome will have positive future repercussions.

2) At least he is an honest guy who has been saying the same thing for 30 years. Since he hasn't DONE anything bad yet to SS, Medicare etc, MAYBE he will consider what is best for Americans at least from a transitional perspective.

3) Newsletters, Smoozeletters. Whatever.

4) Paul will free us from our descent into a police state or at least he will temporarily halt the process.

5) I can not look at Barack Obama. EVERYSINGLE thing he says, he does the opposite of. It is totally disgusting.

1. So you are willing to betray fundamental principles at the lure of a little populist rhetoric? Great.

2. He hasn't done "anything bad yet" to Social Security and Medicare because he isn't president. You're like the guy who jumps off the Empire State Building, and as he passes the third floor he says "So far, so good."

3. So you don't give a shit about racism. Some anarchist.

4. Oh? Free us from the descent into police state? By abolishing birthright citizenship, banning abortion and unleashing the cops to protect middle-class property rights from fleet-footed black youth? Or as long as white anarchist posers get to smoke their ganja in peace it's all OK?

5. Your feelings about Obama are not particularly relevant to whether or not Ron Paul is a fascistic little weasel.

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." — Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." — Ron Paul, 1992

These quotes courtesy of the very entertaining Skeleton Closet website, which also does a very good job of documenting how Paul's pseudo-disavowal of such materials from his toxic newsletter are transparent BS.

Bill, I can appreciate that you like swatting at the Paul trolls, having trolled for them in the first place. But if you're going to claim that Greenwald supports Paul, as you claim and suggest repeatedly, you should be able to prove it by quoting from his piece. You can't because he doesn't. Indeed, your missing Greenwald's point about the homogeneity of the parties and the contradiction of anti-war, anti-torture folks voting for Obama, makes you about as unsubtle as the Paulists you apparently enjoy jousting with.

I would never dream of voting for Paul and neither would Glenn. I'd reckon. But the fact that a few of Paul's positions-- such as his being the only candidate in either major party who would take nuking Iran "off the table"-- are being raised at all, is not a bad thing, no matter how unsubtly you would like to argue that it is.

I didn't say that Greenwald "supports" Paul, exactly. I said that he continues "to gush over Paul—while denying he 'supports' or 'endorses' him so many times that it smells strongly of methinks-he-doth-protest-too-much." Why don't you try paying attention?

The fact that the only major party candidate who would take nuking Iran "off the table" is a far-right isolationist wackjob is a pretty terrifying state of affairs. Thanks for the good news.

Bill-- you write variously that Greenwald or Scheer shill for Paul, effuse over him, protest too much that they do not support him, legitimize him, are co-opted into a mouthpieces for his campaign...but you say you never claim or suggest that they support him.

Perhaps a cat snuck into your office and wrote all those things?

Okay Bill, why don't you let me know your first language. If I know it, we can communicate in it. It's obviously not English. Also, through deceit or incompetence you mischaracterized Greenwald's use of the term "fallacy" (not "fallacies" as you mistakenly quoted.) He was not, as you falsely write, dismissing principled criticisms as fallacy. Go back and read what he wrote. You should pay better attention to what you read AND what you write.

It's not acceptable to quote a writer from his/her headline because writers don't usually write their headlines. You didn't know this? That was likely a Salon editors words. Greenwald used the word 'fallacy' in his column.

Nice subterfuge though. But ultimately a transparent dodge of my non-parenthetic points: that you indeed falsely suggest that these writers support Ron Paul; and that you deceitfully misconstrue Greenwald's use of the term 'fallacy.' He is NOT using that term to dismiss principled criticisms as you falsely argue. I repeat: Go back and read what he wrote. What is this, amateur hour?

It is perfectly acceptable to quote a writer's headline. Bloggers generally do write their own, and if some editor at Salon went over Greenwald's head, he should speak up. (This is like Paul shilling off the blame for the toxic crap in his newsletters onto ghost writers.) Anyway, I can't even figure out what hair you are splitting here. What dif does it make whether it is singular or plural? And yes he is dismissing principled criticisms (even if he pays very grudging lip service to them elsewhere), and you need to go back and read what he wrote.

Ron Paul is the very definition of amateur hour. He never got anything done as an elected official. He rambles on about the Austrian school of economics, an entirely suspect theory which he would use as a smokescreen to sell off the national parks and free his corporate industrial cronies from any environmental regulation. He's all for limiting the Federal government which is the usual racist states rights smokescreen for crushing dangerous minorities.

Why don't you wishful thinking potheads find another hobby? Economic libertarianism is just another excuse for crushing the middle class, though it's unclear if Paul is smart enough to realize that or if he's in the thrall of the sound of his own voice. And if you're under the illusion that Paul would roll back Federal power once it was in his grasp you really should stick to comic books.

I just read your article and associated comments. I feel compelled to inform you that I have never witnessed an author defend their writing as pathetically as you with your numerous ad hominem attacks on others' comments. If you can't logically discuss your points without fallacy, you will fail to convince anyone who is remotely intelligent.

My attacks on the Paul shills are not ad hominem. I pepper my language with well-earned epithets, but I do not use them as a substitute for argument. In fact, accusing me of ad hominem attacks instead of addressing my arguments is, ironically, an ad hominem attack.

...I'm not an RP supporter. I don't play your stupid "Choose your new masters every couple of years" game. I put my gun down years ago. Clearly you still have a firm grip on yours. So yes, fuck your religion.

So my emotions got the better of me. It happens. And it is good that you're not shilling for anybody. But I think it is intellectually dishonest to suggest, as a tactical maneuver, electing someone who has only grown the truly fascistic scenario we now find ourselves in. I haven't participated in the sham political circus since 2004, and have abandoned the notion that there is a top down solution to the problems of the world. I now favor ground up, community oriented solutions instead.

I explicitly said that even if we feel we have to vote for Obama as a tactical measure, we have to be prepared to fight him for another four years. But if you want "fascistic scenarios," all I can say is you ain't seen nothing yet... If we are creeping towards fascism under Obama, we'd be galloping headlong into it under a President Romney or (*shudder*) Paul or (*double shudder*) Santorum...